![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseGlancing over this post in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fandom_memes and absently considering answering a few questions for that meme using a handful of characters; attempting to answer question ten “Is this character popular with the fanbase?” for Trinity Blood’s Seth gave me pause for thought. Because as far as I understand it she seems to be quite popular which leads me to suspect that the Trinity Blood fandom is willing to forgive institutionalized racism and a repressive state system as long as it’s enacted by a cute girl in a short skirt. Or rather, less flippantly, the issue seems to be that she may have meant well as if that excuses anything.
It’s an odd conclusion to draw really because while the ends may very well justify the means in the particular example of Seth the end result she’s reaching for isn’t anything like a laudable one. What she’s aiming for is complete human repression to the point where functional human beings become automatons which is pretty nefarious in my book but her reasoning for this ultimate goal is because she believes that it will help things. Her belief is that if she institutes a racist caste system and removes all free will then there’ll be no more discord or strife amongst humanity. There’ll also be no more hope or joy or use in living either but that’s beside the point. What she wants is an Equilibrium-style system which has the reasonable aim of attempting to abolish the negative aspects of human existence but also has the unfortunate effect of destroying everything else. The aim then isn’t actually that bad, it’s a nice idea after all but the means used are the problem because they aren’t just driving things towards that endpoint but changing the endpoint entirely. An end to all wars becomes an end to everything else to the point where it’s just establishing the perpetual peace of the grave, though a living grave in those two examples. And this is where the problem arises: when the means actually change the ends.
For a similar example, as far as the Death Eaters of Harry Potter are concerned plenty of them may well have been fighting to preserve the traditions of their culture, save their families from the onslaught of what they saw as damaging change and so that their people as a whole would no longer have to hide themselves from the rest of the population. Phrased like that they were simply trying to save themselves but in the undertaking actually ended up running around spreading racism and violence. The point being that from their own perspective they were doing the right thing. If nobody stood up to fight for the preservation of wizarding culture they’d be assimilated into some washed-out muggle-born interpretation of what the muggle supporters wanted them to be. From that point of view having very powerful pro-muggle individuals like Dumbledore around would have only caused them greater concern for preserving not only their culture but perhaps also their own families’ lives. Still, running round in masks murdering everyone else as a result wasn’t really the best of outcomes though if the old families did feel trapped by the changing political climate it may well have been the only thing that they felt their could do.
Likewise and far less ambiguously, DragonLance’s Knights of Takhisis are a prime example of the ostentatious villains believing that they’re doing the right thing. Their strength came from the faith in what they were doing and what they were doing was imposing order on a disordered and decadent world. It didn’t matter to them that the world didn’t actually want this imposed order and they weren’t exactly asking anyone else’s opinion on the matter either which is what made them the villains. They conquered by force and once they’d instituted their rule, were polite and civil about it but that didn’t make what they’d done any less nefarious. Though in their case it’s possible that if it hadn’t been for the Chaos War they might have eventually been accepted as the ruling party. Granted, the problem they would have then faced would have been weeding out the older evil forces who still failed to realise that if they were going to establish the rule of law they had to abide by it as well but under Ariakan’s command they might in fact have managed it.
Of course I’m somewhat biased towards the Knights of Takhisis anyway and they’re a ridiculously ambiguous example anyway but by way of individuals, to use Azalin Rex, even he’s not entirely a clear cut case. Azalin murders his own son for falling far short of Azalin’s standards which seems a terrible act at a first glance, until you factor in that what Azalin was doing was removing someone entirely unfit to rule from the line of succession that would have led to absolute control of their domain. In that light while his actions seem unnecessarily harsh on one level, on the other they do in fact appear to be entirely necessary. He can’t let somebody incapable of leadership succeed him because the fate of the kingdom rests upon his leaving behind a capable successor. And if he’d let a potential successor go into exile or similar there’d be the potential in years to come that said would-be successor might come back to challenge either Azalin himself or whoever had been designated as Azalin’s heir. None of which makes Azalin’s actions any less vicious but does at least illustrate that he probably had more in mind than just murdering his own son for the heck of it.
The villains then do as a general rule tend to believe that they’re doing the right thing just as much as the supposed heroes but the fact that they do doesn’t give them free licence to act as they please. Seth, Lucius, Ariakan and Azalin are all still villains as a result of their actions, regardless of why they’re acting as they do. Because the end result is the same: racism, repressive state systems and the suppression of human will, and those are never laudable. The ends may very well justify the means but when the end in of itself possesses little by way of redeeming qualities and the only excuse offered is that the character in question meant well then that’s not really any defence at all. And then of course you start to wonder if the argument of motivation really is applicable at all or if it’s just a selection of useful excuses unsubstantiated by the evident end result. It is very easy to come up with revisionst history or even less than deliberate reinterpretation when it comes down to the matter of analysing rhetoric after all.
“No prince ever lacked good excuses to colour his bad faith.”
- Machiavelli, N, 1995. The Prince. p. 55. London: Penguin Books.
fandom_memes and absently considering answering a few questions for that meme using a handful of characters; attempting to answer question ten “Is this character popular with the fanbase?” for Trinity Blood’s Seth gave me pause for thought. Because as far as I understand it she seems to be quite popular which leads me to suspect that the Trinity Blood fandom is willing to forgive institutionalized racism and a repressive state system as long as it’s enacted by a cute girl in a short skirt. Or rather, less flippantly, the issue seems to be that she may have meant well as if that excuses anything.It’s an odd conclusion to draw really because while the ends may very well justify the means in the particular example of Seth the end result she’s reaching for isn’t anything like a laudable one. What she’s aiming for is complete human repression to the point where functional human beings become automatons which is pretty nefarious in my book but her reasoning for this ultimate goal is because she believes that it will help things. Her belief is that if she institutes a racist caste system and removes all free will then there’ll be no more discord or strife amongst humanity. There’ll also be no more hope or joy or use in living either but that’s beside the point. What she wants is an Equilibrium-style system which has the reasonable aim of attempting to abolish the negative aspects of human existence but also has the unfortunate effect of destroying everything else. The aim then isn’t actually that bad, it’s a nice idea after all but the means used are the problem because they aren’t just driving things towards that endpoint but changing the endpoint entirely. An end to all wars becomes an end to everything else to the point where it’s just establishing the perpetual peace of the grave, though a living grave in those two examples. And this is where the problem arises: when the means actually change the ends.
For a similar example, as far as the Death Eaters of Harry Potter are concerned plenty of them may well have been fighting to preserve the traditions of their culture, save their families from the onslaught of what they saw as damaging change and so that their people as a whole would no longer have to hide themselves from the rest of the population. Phrased like that they were simply trying to save themselves but in the undertaking actually ended up running around spreading racism and violence. The point being that from their own perspective they were doing the right thing. If nobody stood up to fight for the preservation of wizarding culture they’d be assimilated into some washed-out muggle-born interpretation of what the muggle supporters wanted them to be. From that point of view having very powerful pro-muggle individuals like Dumbledore around would have only caused them greater concern for preserving not only their culture but perhaps also their own families’ lives. Still, running round in masks murdering everyone else as a result wasn’t really the best of outcomes though if the old families did feel trapped by the changing political climate it may well have been the only thing that they felt their could do.
Likewise and far less ambiguously, DragonLance’s Knights of Takhisis are a prime example of the ostentatious villains believing that they’re doing the right thing. Their strength came from the faith in what they were doing and what they were doing was imposing order on a disordered and decadent world. It didn’t matter to them that the world didn’t actually want this imposed order and they weren’t exactly asking anyone else’s opinion on the matter either which is what made them the villains. They conquered by force and once they’d instituted their rule, were polite and civil about it but that didn’t make what they’d done any less nefarious. Though in their case it’s possible that if it hadn’t been for the Chaos War they might have eventually been accepted as the ruling party. Granted, the problem they would have then faced would have been weeding out the older evil forces who still failed to realise that if they were going to establish the rule of law they had to abide by it as well but under Ariakan’s command they might in fact have managed it.
Of course I’m somewhat biased towards the Knights of Takhisis anyway and they’re a ridiculously ambiguous example anyway but by way of individuals, to use Azalin Rex, even he’s not entirely a clear cut case. Azalin murders his own son for falling far short of Azalin’s standards which seems a terrible act at a first glance, until you factor in that what Azalin was doing was removing someone entirely unfit to rule from the line of succession that would have led to absolute control of their domain. In that light while his actions seem unnecessarily harsh on one level, on the other they do in fact appear to be entirely necessary. He can’t let somebody incapable of leadership succeed him because the fate of the kingdom rests upon his leaving behind a capable successor. And if he’d let a potential successor go into exile or similar there’d be the potential in years to come that said would-be successor might come back to challenge either Azalin himself or whoever had been designated as Azalin’s heir. None of which makes Azalin’s actions any less vicious but does at least illustrate that he probably had more in mind than just murdering his own son for the heck of it.
The villains then do as a general rule tend to believe that they’re doing the right thing just as much as the supposed heroes but the fact that they do doesn’t give them free licence to act as they please. Seth, Lucius, Ariakan and Azalin are all still villains as a result of their actions, regardless of why they’re acting as they do. Because the end result is the same: racism, repressive state systems and the suppression of human will, and those are never laudable. The ends may very well justify the means but when the end in of itself possesses little by way of redeeming qualities and the only excuse offered is that the character in question meant well then that’s not really any defence at all. And then of course you start to wonder if the argument of motivation really is applicable at all or if it’s just a selection of useful excuses unsubstantiated by the evident end result. It is very easy to come up with revisionst history or even less than deliberate reinterpretation when it comes down to the matter of analysing rhetoric after all.
“No prince ever lacked good excuses to colour his bad faith.”
- Machiavelli, N, 1995. The Prince. p. 55. London: Penguin Books.
